Paul is doing far better than anybody in the mainstream media said they thought he could. They would rather an awful bible waving, civil rights jacking racist candidate like Rick Santorum win. At least it would be a good news story, for Faux News.

I'm a little bit more pissed off than I was 3 year ago

Definitely Romney. America's too scared and ignorant to vote for Paul.

But as a third party candidate he will surely give Obama the win.

I think it's still a race. Romney may be in the lead today, but so was Perry, Cain, Gingrich, etc. The more Romney talks the more voters will decide if they like him or not.

Romney looks good but he's starting to be seen as someone who will continue to help bankers and investors and do very little for the under $100K folks.

Paul has some interesting ideas but his foreign policy goes against most of the country and he has yet to explain how he will accomplish any of his ideas without the support of Congress, who will oppose most if not all of his ideas.

Santorum may rise to the top as people get a chance to hear him rather than what the MSM wants.

So, it could still be a race. Of course whoever wins should beat Obama.

Keep in mind what happened in the last election. The weakest opponent was left alone until after the primaries by mainstream media (and that was McCain). Then he was villified with gloves off. I think Gingrich would sweep the floor with Obama in any debate, so Democratic strategists are trying what they did last time. They know Romney's religion will reduce a lot of Republican votes, and that he isn't a strong debater. They're propping Romney up, hoping he'll win the primary, and then then try and cut him off at the knees for an Obama re-election.

Mickler wrote:

Keep in mind what happened in the last election. The weakest opponent was left alone until after the primaries by mainstream media (and that was McCain). Then he was villified with gloves off. I think Gingrich would sweep the floor with Obama in any debate, so Democratic strategists are trying what they did last time. They know Romney's religion will reduce a lot of Republican votes, and that he isn't a strong debater. They're propping Romney up, hoping he'll win the primary, and then then try and cut him off at the knees for an Obama re-election.

No doubt in my mind about Gingrich winning a debate with any candidate including Obama. His hurdle will be winning the Repub. nomination. His personal life history will be his main problem.

True that if Paul became president he wouldn't have the power without congress to get his ideas to become law, BUT he will have the power to veto any law that he deems unconstitutional and that alone will be enough to win my vote.

Romney ... and drive Obama.nation into the mud. His POTUS behavior will be moderate ... but 13,000,000 narco.Mex head south and no kommi dykks on the SUPREMES.

Too much to ask that no import is permitted of **any** foreign manufactured sporting goods and housewares.

TOASTER wrote:

<quoted text>
No doubt in my mind about Gingrich winning a debate with any candidate including Obama. His hurdle will be winning the Repub. nomination. His personal life history will be his main problem.

I agree. Too many self righteous voters will get hung up on issues that aren't real issues, such as his divorce. That is his personal business. Democratic strategists are hoping voters will focus on that, so the weaker opponent can win the primaries and solidify a re-election.

Mickler wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. Too many self righteous voters will get hung up on issues that aren't real issues, such as his divorce. That is his personal business. Democratic strategists are hoping voters will focus on that, so the weaker opponent can win the primaries and solidify a re-election.

Continue to think smarmy like you are ... and assure the re-election of Obama.nation. If you believe disciplined personal behavior is not publically relevant, then you are well and truly fyucked.

noshellswill wrote:

<quoted text>
Continue to think smarmy like you are ... and assure the re-election of Obama.nation. If you believe disciplined personal behavior is not publically relevant, then you are well and truly fyucked.

You're pissing in the wind again, teach. I believe and KNOW that what he does in his private life is just that. I'm not simple enough to go down a rabbit trail. I also know that there isn't a single high level politician with a perfect marital relationship. If that were a requirement, some of our most celebrated leaders would have never been given the opportunity.

Paul gave clear straight answers in the last debate, even when the crowd turned against him he didn't back down from hi beliefs. After he made his point, round of applause. No bs candidates please

His*

Freewheelin Bob Dylan wrote:

Paul gave clear straight answers in the last debate, even when the crowd turned against him he didn't back down from hi beliefs. After he made his point, round of applause. No bs candidates please

I think Paul gave one of his best performances so far. But for a lot of people, giving a straight answer that is stupid is still stupid.

What he hasn't answered, nor have any of his supporters answered is if he were elected President how he will accomplish any of his ideas without the support of Congress, who will oppose most if not all of his ideas. He wants to eliminate the Fed, how would he do that when Congress won't let him? He wants to eliminate the military overseas. Ok, so how? If Congress sends him a budget with lots of money for overseas military and he vetoes the budget, then he either does an Obama and they pass the emergency budget, or he wipes out everything.

Obama ran on a plateform that sounded great but couldn't be implemented and look what we got. Paul's plateform is different but how would his results be any different?

This thread is a freaking joke..

It doesn't matter who wins, folks.. The country will be f$$ked up in the end regardless of the outcome...

I predict... Obama monkey boy will be running in the wind twirling a baton with his dick, as he crosses over the finish line...

This government is just too corrupted to lean on politicians to save your sorry asses..

Do any of you hear that whispering in the wind?.. Its the republicans and democrats conspiring again..

So take your votes and shove it up your ass.. You would be better off eating dead rats..

he likes shove things up sorry asses..

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
I think Paul gave one of his best performances so far. But for a lot of people, giving a straight answer that is stupid is still stupid.
What he hasn't answered, nor have any of his supporters answered is if he were elected President how he will accomplish any of his ideas without the support of Congress, who will oppose most if not all of his ideas. He wants to eliminate the Fed, how would he do that when Congress won't let him? He wants to eliminate the military overseas. Ok, so how? If Congress sends him a budget with lots of money for overseas military and he vetoes the budget, then he either does an Obama and they pass the emergency budget, or he wipes out everything.
Obama ran on a plateform that sounded great but couldn't be implemented and look what we got. Paul's plateform is different but how would his results be any different?

Clever point. Some consensus is helpful! HA! Yet Rawlsian Obama.nation is doing **his** kind of damage. I imagine Ron Paul if elected a lonesome-libertarian POTUS would do **his** kind of damage.

Would be fun to see Shumer and Boxer have heart-attacks on the same day!!!

FLBeaver wrote:

<quoted text>
I think Paul gave one of his best performances so far. But for a lot of people, giving a straight answer that is stupid is still stupid.
What he hasn't answered, nor have any of his supporters answered is if he were elected President how he will accomplish any of his ideas without the support of Congress, who will oppose most if not all of his ideas. He wants to eliminate the Fed, how would he do that when Congress won't let him? He wants to eliminate the military overseas. Ok, so how? If Congress sends him a budget with lots of money for overseas military and he vetoes the budget, then he either does an Obama and they pass the emergency budget, or he wipes out everything.
Obama ran on a plateform that sounded great but couldn't be implemented and look what we got. Paul's plateform is different but how would his results be any different?

well,it's true. Without the support of congress, you can't get your platform across. But would you rather have some trying to pass a platform you agree, or one you don't? Not everything Barak Obama tried to pass did, however,much of his ideas came into play. Now if you don't agree with, Obama care, for instance, you wouldn't vote for Obama even if you know he needs congress to help him pass it. You vote based on your principle and beliefs, that way you can get as close to the way things ought to be, even if you can't get there all the way. And with so many intellectuals who are unwilling to listen to the same ole same ole that people spew just to sound like winners without actually saying anything, I think giving straight answers is a very good idea. No one has been able to call Paul a liar, flip-flopped, or special intrest advocate because he is consistent.

Flip flopper*